babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » rabble news features   » Where's the Globe? Where's the Post?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Where's the Globe? Where's the Post?
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 19 January 2004 12:04 PM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well over a million Canadians will have read The National Post or The Globe and Mail this past weekend. Socially conscious readers may have noticed that a major event, the World Social Forum (WSF), went unreported by our national dailies on both Friday, the opening day of the forum, and Saturday, the heaviest circulation day for the papers.

Full story


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 19 January 2004 02:11 PM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow! What a surprise! CanWEST-Global ignoring progressive events???

Let's remember folks that it was this same organization that kicked a show out of the Fringe Festival. Nothing is going to change until activists unite and launch a concerted effort against this type of patehtic corporate display and power-abuse.

Write letters to the editors. Subvert journalists. Culture-jam. Campaign to cancal subscriptions. Get the truth out there for all to see. Make 'em hurt, or it'll be more of the same ad infinitum.

[ 19 January 2004: Message edited by: Performance Anxiety ]


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 19 January 2004 10:08 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
A boycott of our national newspapers accompanied by a campaign of protest against blatant censorship is another line of action.

first of all, most "globophobe" types (to the national post's favorite pejorative for us) dont buy the globe or the post in the first place, so a boycott is a moot issue. besides, only 15% of revenue comes from subscription and street sales.

secondly, the globe and mail has many quality reporters who will be discussing the WSF in the near future - rick salutin (whose column appears on fridays, and is available on rabble), naomi klein(whose column appears every second week), jim standford (whose column appears on mondays), and paul knox, who reports on latin american politics. All four are among the brightest progressive canadian minds, and all are regular contributing columnist for the globe.

it would seem that anthony fenton doesnt read the globe that often. this is sympotatic of most ideologues; progressives tend only to read progressive literature, while conservatives tend only to read mainstream literature.

fenton should also know that WEF recieved almost no coverage in the globe - only ROB made any mention.

if we want the WSF reported on in the globe, we have to be media friendly - give them a reason to cover it.

it should also be known that last saturday's globe had a lenghty and positive article on Mark Achbar's "THE CORPORATION" - so the canadian newsmedia (notwhithstanding canwest holdings)is not quite the elitist model that fenton's paints it to be.


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 19 January 2004 10:17 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i forgot to mention ken wiwa, who also has a weekly column in the globe. (his father was ken saro wiwa)
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 20 January 2004 03:09 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well aren't YOU the Globe cheerleader? If the paper is so good, why aren't they giving coverage to the WSF???


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Marysue
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3351

posted 20 January 2004 04:14 AM      Profile for Marysue     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There is a ton of alternet press out there, besides rabble.ca -- with tons of good writers who don't mince words. There's nothing worse than a timid reporter, or a columnist who is too polite, too vague or subtle. Murray Dobbin, Ed Deak, Bill Tieleman, and many, many more good writers are courageous. Go and visit alter-net sites like: http://www.thetyee.ca/
and StraightGoods.com for a start. There are links to others here on rabble,too. Vary your reading diet

From: North Vancouver Island | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 03:33 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
funny you should mention murray doubin ... he is published in the globe and mail on a regular basis!
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 03:34 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
dobbin i mean (oops)
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anthony
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4873

posted 20 January 2004 03:41 PM      Profile for anthony     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"...so the Canadian newsmedia [notwithstanding CANWEST] is not quite the elitist model that Fenton paints it to be."

A considrable amount of work has been produced in Canada and the US on media concentration and its impact on democracy. James Winter has written two books [Democracy's Oxygen, Common Cents] and cowritten a third with Maude Barlow [The Big Black Book]. Robert Hackett, Richard Gruneau and others established NewsWatch Canada, which culminated in a number of studies regarding media accountability, censorship, and the like [see their "Missing News"] Further, the work of Ben Bagdikian [The Media Monopoly], Robert McChesney [Rich Media, Poor Democracy], Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, as well numerous others cite volumes of evidence, as based on a thorough assessment of primary resources, toward the "elite model" that you refer to.

"if we want the WSF reported on in the globe [or post] we have to be media friendly - give them a reason to cover it."

Yesterday I had a brief conversation with Globe editor-in-chief Ed Greenspon who, after pleading ignorance to the WSF, passed me on to National News editor Bob Cox. This was a lengthy and intriguing conversation, in which Cox justified the globe's decision, claiming that the WSF simply "didn't make the grade" and it was "hardly worth sending someone there", and that their decision to ignore stories made abundantly available on foreign wires was an example of "sound news judgement".

Ironically, Cox did ask me to give him "one good reason why we should cover the WSF." I said that the fact of the WSF itself is newsworthy, what with 100,000 social justice activists gathering in Mumbai, half of which come from an estimated 130 nations." Cox denied that this was reason enough to cover it, but now that I think of it, I must not have been "media friendly" enough in my response to him.

"fenton should also know that WEF received almost no coverage in the globe -only ROB made any mention"

Chomsky has often pointed out that the most honest reporting is generally found in the business section. As I alluded to the other day, Diane Francis, who ordinarily writes for the FP [see today's column on WEF], was indeed candid in her defense of the WEF and her abhorment with the WSF in her previous column.

The coverage or lack of the WEF was not the issue in any case. A rational analysis of what is available would yield interesting results, to be sure. The majority of articles found would either advocate the WEF or WEF-like insitutions, bodies, etc., or it would fail to challenge the ideology behind them, since it is one that it generally shares.

"it would seem that anthony fenton doesn't read the globe that often. This is symptomatic of most ideologues; progressives tend only to read progressive literature, while conservatives tend only..."

I read the globe regularly, as well as the post, the local dailies, in addition to various mainstream electronic sources. In terms of the overall amount of media 'reading' that I do, I read as much 'progressive' as I do 'conservative'. The fact is that I have gone to considerable lengths, largely because I happen to have the time to do so, to know, understand and appreciate the arguments, ideas, methodologies, etc., of those who publicly espouse worldviews which otherwise differ fundamentally from my own. This, I do in the spirit of individuals like Maude Barlow, Tony Clarke, Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein and her brother Seth. Duncan Cameron, Bruce Campbell, and many others.

Coherent visions of alternatives to corporate hegemony are impossible without an appreciation of that very hegemony's workings.

"secondly, the globe and mail has many quality reporters...discussing the WSF in the near future..."

Again, my focus is on the lack of coverage of the WSF - as news in the present tense -. As much as I appreciate Klein, Salutin, McQuaig and the other genuinely progressive writers, their articles would resonate with far greater numbers if events like the WSF are afforded balanced coverage and cogent analysis in advance of their occasional columns, which otherwise take on an appearance [often] of anamoly.

"Boycott is a moot issue...15% of revenue comes from subscription and street sales..."

As stated, I read the globe, the primary reason for which is to keep up with and understand prevailing rhetoric and journalisitc practices of the day. I disagree with the practice of rejecting something out of hand due to fundamental differences of opinion. To do so, I believe, is counterproductive and does nothing, by itself, to nurture an appreciation for existing realities.

The citing of revenues does raise an interesting point. According to a recent article by Arthur M. Hughes [http://www.dbmarketing.com/articles/Art107.htm], 75% of the globe's revenue comes from advertisors. As he is quick to point out, this is somewhat of a misleading statistic, given that, ultimately, that advertising depends on the readers. Without them, no globe, no advertisors. So what the globe needs is a demographically streamlined subscriber base, which they now have. 30% of Canadians are now written off as not being potential subscribers. So when Bob Cox says that his decisions "are in his readers interests", we should be aware of the context that informs such remarks.
The relationship between advertisors, globe and mail executives, and the editorial staff is one that is intertwined.

It is interesting to note the expressed futility of the boycott approach, which itself is merely one of numerous tactics which could be employed. Why is it so difficult to imagine a public dialogue of news, commentary, etc., that is untainted by corporate influence and an accompanying ideological servility on the part of the media?

It should be disturbing to anyone that Canada lacks an independent national press. An appreciation of how and why this came to be can allow us to make productive decisions which creatively challenge or subvert this.


From: Vancouver/Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 03:56 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
and by the way ....

is there something wrong with reading the globe? is there something wrong with being knowledgable of mainstream views so that one can properly engage with them?

are noami klein and rick salutin and ken wiwa and murray dobbin "globe cheerleaders" because they see the benefit of voiceing their views in a mainstream publication? is it better to keep one's ranting to a small little group of pretentious contrarians?

you wanna be "outside the box", perfor. anx.? then try engaging with the world outside of the little chomsky-zinn-barlow-klein box you seem stuck in. wanna know why this "another world is possible" movement is going nowhere? because you refuse to engage with the mainstream. you'd rather, it seems, preach to them from the comfort of your self imposed moral high ground.

read some antonio gramsci. read the globe. read the post. read z mag. read adbusters. read commondreams, alternet, etc. but know that all provide their own slanted and biased a view of the world.

[ 20 January 2004: Message edited by: publius valarius ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anthony
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4873

posted 20 January 2004 05:08 PM      Profile for anthony     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I suppose that my conversations yesterday with the globe's Greenspon and Cox, my letters to the post's Fraser and Francis, and my conversation with Arthur Middleton Hughes don't qualify as "engaging with the mainstream". Neither does my continued willingness to subject, on a daily basis, the post, globe and other mainstream sources to scrutiny and detailed analysis in the context of understanding their frame of reference, methodologies, etc.

According to the logic of the previous post, those who have a commitment toward social justice have no place expressing views that are engendered by rational and concrete analysis of existing realities.

Suppose that I am running a business. As such, I am going to address my target market in the most efficient way possible; if this means that I don't expend resources to commit to peripheral topics, then I simply cannot afford to offer these (while
maintaining the quality of my core services).

Bob Cox denied that censorship was taking place while claiming that it was simply not in the interests of the globe's readers to be privy to the WSF. David Langille said yesterday that this is an example of "willful ignorance" on the part of the media. At the same time it demonstrates the fiscal practicalities of this equation. If Canadians fail to significantly raise the social costs of continuing down this road, then the corporate-inspired status quo will continue. If, alternatively, we challenge this paradigm, we at least maintain the possibility that it will be subverted.


From: Vancouver/Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 06:26 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
first of all, you refered to the "elite model", and secondly, Chomsky/Herman, Bagdikian and McChesney DO NOT advocate the elitist model. the elite model dictates that agenda setting and framing is done by brandy drinking, cigar smoking board members intent on the CONSCIOUS and DIRECT manipulation of news as a social construct. Chomsky and others argue that an indirect and subconsious form of selective manipulation occurs. This is better known as the template model, where mainstream embedded assumptions go unchallenged. chomsky argues a "lap dog" model, elite model advocates a "guard dog" model.

the media business is all about selling an audience to advertisers. as a result, it is marketers (chomsky talks alot about the PR industry as the biggest) and pollsters who determine the agenda.

Bagdikian would say that WSF is not recieving any coverage because there are no "public celebrities" there, no "official and familiar faces there". he wouldnt argue, as does the elite model, that it is corporate types worried that knowledge of the WSF might undermine their 'aristocratic plutocracy'. As Bagdikian says, journalism is inherently about value laden decisions. Cox and Greenspon made one, not Bell Canada, because they couldnt draw reader to the story. my "media friendly point", which you understandably misunderstood, meant simply "give them a reason to cover it". what does the media cover - the 3 c's: conflict,

also, Chomsky's discusses the idea of media concision ... the idea that WSF would not be covered because it would challenge these "embedded assumptions" in the readership. they would freak out, the reasoning goes, with knowledge of a counter hegemonic movement that defends THEIR TRUE interests. (which raises the point of false consciousness, which you tacitly argue, by arguing that coverage of the WSF is in the interest of the general public. is it? or is it the interest of progressive types. remember, bagdikian also writes that where you stand will dictate what you percieve as bias and objectivity.

but it is interesting to look at the Miami WTO and the Monterray FTAA coverage in the globe. the "fair trade" agenda was covered and explained and op ed's written in defence of Chavez and Lula's stance. there were stories on maquiladoras and the plight of latin american farmers. The media is about selection, which presupposes ommission. While i am surprised not even 2 inches was devoted to the WSF in the "world in brief" section of the globe, ommission does not always mean that a story conflicted with financial interest - though this is exactly what the elite model argues.

and the media has always had a bias in covering any social movement - be it civil rights in the 60's, anti war in the 70's, gay liberation in the 80's, anti corporate globalization in the 90's - because it is simply more difficult to tell the story. it is not an economic reasoning, its a pragmatic reasoning. the media has an "episodic" (vs thematic) bias - not a pronounced economic bias.

nevertheless, i agree that what is needed is a form of public/civic/participatory jounralism. but how to accomplish this? patrick watson has writen about a public national newspaper, but with the CBC facing annual cuts, where will this money come from?

but to get on the mainstream media's case for not reporting on the WSF is such a superficial criticism when there are so many more important citicisms to lay against it. so what that it didnt report it. does this mean elite are controling the flow of information in an attempt to ensure their financial global rule? c'mon. as chomsky argues, its structural, not personal - both media coverage and the critiques that need to be laid.

look at the issues the WSF is raising. all these issues are alread addressed in the media through other stories. (for ex, GM food and monsanto supreme court case). but as walt lippmann said, we know little of what is happening, why it is happening, and what ought to happen". this is just the shortcoming of the news media in general. it has little to do with elites control the agenda and framing of issues.

at the end of the day, the only way a mainstream publication will report on the WSF is if enough people already know about it and expect to see it covered. it took car free day a while to go mainstream, and buy nothing day is starting to pick up. the wsf is only 4 years old. give it a couple years.

ill leave it at that for now


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 06:38 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
for better clarification on the elite media model, see Paul Nesbitt-Larking "Politics, Society and the media - canadian experience", p 90-94, 122-125.
From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anthony
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4873

posted 20 January 2004 10:34 PM      Profile for anthony     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
publius,

I appreciate your remarks there, as well as your effort at greater clarity. In keeping with this, I should remind you that you referred to the "elite model" initially [10:08 P.M]. That is where your accountability in the ensuing confusion ends, however. I was unaware that there actually is such a thing as an "elite model", so when I used it [in quotes] - assuming that the term was in fact your own - I ended up misattributing it to Chomsky [and others], while mistakingly - in so doing - agreeing that I was arguing some "elite model". So please allow me to, respectfully, clear up a few things on this basis.

I'll just mention a couple of online resources that should figure in here, such as FAIR, and Project Censored. One of their common mandates is to "tell the news that didn't make the news and why". Every year there are many important stories that don't make the mainstream news, that are "broken" by small publications, etc., but "filtered out" of the propaganda framework. FAIR and PC, both longstanding alternative media resources, draw attention to these stories.

Acc. to Chomsky, "it is the responsibility of intellectuals to the expose lies and to tell the truth". This is a truism. The WSF is an important event, an event that represents the calculus of the existing global social justice movement. There has never been any such 'thing' in our history. It has an extremely long way to go before it can enact significant relative change, of course, but it needs to be sustained while at the same time it grows. Fundamentally, all I've done is attempt to raise awareness to this fact, while pointing out that 'another world is possible', but only if we are committed to doing something about it.

I agree that there are more 'important' criticisms to level against it, but this does not mean we should preclude ANY criticism. You try things out, you see if they succeed; if they do not, you move on to something else; you learn in the process. If a criticism is genuine in its intent, then it cannot legitimately be charged as superficial, in any case.

In a situation of corporate hegemony, it is necessarily the case that elites control the agenda and the framing of issues. Chomsky is abundantly clear on this, just as he is clear that when he is talking about the media or propaganda, he is not subscribing to some theoretical model in so doing.


From: Vancouver/Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 11:18 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i deduced the elite model from your words, anthony:

"So long as Canadian publications are owned by large corporations, with boards of directors who are among our ruling elite, the demand will be that the ideology of these elites be protected by their cadre of journalists cum mandarins".


"Perhaps those Canadians who are aware of the tacit censorship campaign of our only national newspapers will voice their concerns over this recent Orwellian exercise. The 21st century, while young, has given rise to new methods of propaganda with old aims: the advancement and protection at all costs of elite interests".

It is disengenuous to say that mcchesney, bagdikian or chomsky/herman would agree with this conspiratorial analysis. all are gramscian in approach.

Now, while FAIR and Project Censored provide an invaluable service (as does the new media watch at Columbia's J -s school, started in part by danny schechter), but they analyse the american media alone - not the canadian media. Whether it be the war in iraq, the occupation of the palestinian territories, or whatever, the canadian mainstream media - be it the cbc, the toronto star, the globe and mail (and now, fortunately, Walrus magazine) - pick up on many stories missed by the american mainstream media.

if you come across a copy of "understanding power - the indispendable chomsky", noam discusses, however briefly, the differences between our two news industries.

to quote chomsky: "i did find things in the globe and mail which did not appear in the New York Times, or which appeared in only really remote places. And also, i have friends in the canadian media who clip from the canadian press for me, and they often find stuff that doesnt appear anywhere in the United States". (understanding power, page 289)

And remember, chomsky's "necessary illusions" was made up of talks he gave on cbc radio.

and if you look at the propoganda model, there is little mention of influence from "elites" outside of the "ownership" filter. though you state that chomsky believes "elites control the agenda and the framing of issues", this is to misunderstand him. email him at mit (chomsky@mit.edu) - he will actually email you back, believe it or not - and he will forward you some of his passages in correction.

i see that you are doing your MA thesis on the anti corporate/pro democratic globalization movement. mine is similar, and antonio gramsci was an invaluable resource. i encourage you to read up on him. should you, i think you will better understand people like chomsky, and bagdikian, (and even stuart hall, who i encourage all autodidacts in media studies to read)


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 20 January 2004 11:38 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
im re posting this just for performance anxieties' sake.

to quote chomsky: "i did find things in the globe and mail which did not appear in the New York Times, or which appeared in only really remote places. And also, i have friends in the canadian media who clip from the canadian press for me, and they often find stuff that doesnt appear anywhere in the United States". (understanding power, page 289)

hmmm .... is chomsky (gasp!) a cheerleader for the globe and mail?!?


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 12:54 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
new york times coverage of the WSF

interestingly enough, the new york times has an article on the WSF. who'da thought. looks like FAIR and PC wont be able to add this story their project censorship.

[ 21 January 2004: Message edited by: publius politricks valerius ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 21 January 2004 02:05 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
you wanna be "outside the box", perfor. anx.? then try engaging with the world outside of the little chomsky-zinn-barlow-klein box you seem stuck in. wanna know why this "another world is possible" movement is going nowhere? because you refuse to engage with the mainstream. you'd rather, it seems, preach to them from the comfort of your self imposed moral high ground.

read some antonio gramsci. read the globe. read the post. read z mag. read adbusters. read commondreams, alternet, etc. but know that all provide their own slanted and biased a view of the world.


Nice reality advertising dude. I think I'll pass on the "globe", but Gramsci is welcome on my bookshelf any day of the year. Where, I wonder, did you hear about cultural hegemony? Certainly not in the Globe. Whta pisses me off about you stealth marketers is that you really can't have it both ways. Let's face the fact - the Globe gave shit coverage to the WSF, and we are not going to read it.

ps: the chomsky-zinn-barlow-klein box you speak of is entirely your own. Personally I suggest you abandon these Avon ladies of activism and move on to some real theorists - click here for details, dum-dum.


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 02:22 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Whta pisses me off about you stealth marketers is that you really can't have it both ways. Let's face the fact - the Globe gave shit coverage to the WSF, and we are not going to read it.

first off, the fact you think im a marketer for the globe (and not, as my profile states, and my previous post in this and other threads should indicate, a student) leads me to think you may be suffering from acute corporate paranoia.

secondonly, who is the WE you speak for. certainly not anthony, who, as you would know if you read his insightful threads, reads the globe and other mainstream publications. why? cause you cant critique what you dont read. simple as that.

and what is with the klein/barlow slap? are they not "street" enough for you? do they not "keep it real"? they not "hardcore" enough? sounds like activist snobbery to me. sounds like activist hierarchy to me. you mean you dont believe in the abolishment of all froms of hierarchy? did you miss that sit in?

and if you can a place for gramsci on your book shelf, you may want to consider reading him, cause he talks about the primacy of engaging with the mainstream as the only way of winning over the mainstream. change comes from the middle, not the top or the the bottom.

so if YOU dont want to read the post or the globe of the star, fine. but dont speak for the collective readership of rabble. YOU FORGET THAT MANY RABBLE CONTRIBUTORS HAVE WEEKLY COLUMNS IN THESE PAPERS, SO YOU ARE ALREADY READING THE GLOBE AND THE STAR.

[ 21 January 2004: Message edited by: publius politricks valerius ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 21 January 2004 02:35 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Dude. I've looked at the Globe and it's the same shit as Can-WEST - corporate bullshit. Are you a stealth marketer? Yes. You are promoting a shit paper for us to read. Any paper can be analyzed by its qulaity of theatre crticism. Kate Taylor spouts puffery and little else. Even CanWEST wins here - read The Gazette's Matt Radz, sir. And please stop your advertising - babble is meant for intelligent discussion, NOT corporate advertising.


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 02:50 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
theatre criticsm....!? the hell does that have to do with people murray dobbin, naomi klein, ken wiwa, jim stantford and paul knox who write for the globe. are THEY "shit" journalists/columnists?

my god ... to say you can judge the quality of a NEWSpaper on its theatre coverage is like criticizing a THEATREpaper on its world news coverage. your logic baffles me. and the fact that you think im a stealth marketer (ps. papers make little money on subscriptions, and you can read the whole globe on the internet for FREE) gives the ANXIETY in you name a whole new meaning. you really are suffering from corporate paranoia. you arent outside the box. you're outside reality.

and you havnt enagaged in a single argument i have made. you've only sprouted a conspiracy theory.

OH NO! I READ A MAINSTREAM PAPER! I MUST HAVE A COVERT MOTIVE!


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 21 January 2004 03:03 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
and you havnt enagaged in a single argument i have made. you've only sprouted a conspiracy theory.

Line up the arguments, dun-dun, and I'll respond to them when I have time.

In the meantime why don't you stop your guerilla marketing and educate yourself - read the INDIE THEATRE TIMES & REVIEW. You want theatre coverage of the so-called "real world"? You'll find it all there.


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 03:10 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
oh my god. i am not a not marketing anything except my belief that you can not critique what you dont read on a regular basis. you can read every major mainstream paper on the internet. i never said BUY these papers. i only said read and engage with them. like gramsci argues.

now, my arguements are presented in the above threads - the one's that respond to anthony's insightful arguments.


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 21 January 2004 03:15 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
i never said BUY these papers. i only said read and engage with them. like gramsci argues.

Never. Not if they ignore the WSF. In fact, I saw in the Gazoo today at the end of the front section an article on the WSF. It was about an alleged rape by an activist against another. Not only was the story buried, but it was also exclusively negative. Nowhere was the WSF mentioned in any sort of detail - the story was all about the apparent rape. But still, at least it was something.

What was in the Globe? Let me guess - nothing at all. CanWEST had something, while the Globe had nothing.

There is no way I will ever read that paper again. I am too upset by their lack of coverage. It was bad enough to see slanted coverage at CanWEST, but to see nothing in the Globe beggars belief. I thought it claimed to be a National paper! Sounds to me like its got a paper bag over its head!

[ 21 January 2004: Message edited by: Performance Anxiety ]


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 03:21 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
from danny schechter's mediachannel blog:

quote:
THE WORLD SOCIAL FORUM

A progressive summit is being held in Mumbai, India. It is focused on alternatives to economic globalization, a campaign to fight discrimination, and opposition to the foreign policy of George Bush.

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist at the World Bank and a Nobel Prize winner in economics, spoke at the meeting. He criticized the "excessive narrowness" of the trade agenda of globalization and attributed it to "the excessive narrowness of the participants" involved. See http://tinyurl.com/3a3hn.

Unfortunately, a South African judge attending the meeting has been arrested on a charge of rape of a fellow South African delegate


i have no idea what the gazoo is, but would you no longer read danny schechter becuause he carried the story of the rape?


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 21 January 2004 03:23 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Gazoo is none other than the so-called "Montreal Gazette" (a CanWEST publication).


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Performance Anxiety
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3474

posted 21 January 2004 03:25 AM      Profile for Performance Anxiety        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ps: if Danny Schechter writes for the Globe I will certainly never read him again. I am boycotting that rag.


From: Outside of the box | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 03:30 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
well read my 20 January 2004 06:26 PM post then

there are several valid reasons why most papers chose not to cover the event. for one, it really isnt that well known - this is only the fourth. remember, it took a while for car free day to get mainstream attention. buy nothing day is starting to coverage, but it is entirely negative.

but as gandhi says: first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. we are on stage 1 or 2 here.


two, the trade issue now takes a back seat to the "war on terror" stuff.

three - the recent miami and monterrey meetings have already provided coverage of those who oppose the WTO and FTAA. With lula and chavez fighting against it, major media has to take note. they need a reason to take note.

four - even chomsky didnt show up to this one. not many big well known name - save joseph stiglitz - did. without big names, there is no reason to cover it. as important as we think it is, the large majority of people have never even heard of it. it is our responsibility as a social justice movement in civil society to get the word out .... not the media's. once the word is out, they will have no choice but to cover it.

and danny schechter is a radical media critic. he used to work for cnn and the washington post, but left to start up an independent media watch group. check out his site ....

www.mediachannel.org

[ 21 January 2004: Message edited by: publius politricks valerius ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anthony
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4873

posted 21 January 2004 01:50 PM      Profile for anthony     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"Politics is the shadow cast over society by big business." -Chomsky quoting Dewey
Under virtual corporate rule, it is necessarily the case that public discourse caters to corporate [aka elite] interests. It is not conspiratorial in the sense that [I think] you mean it, it is simply concomitant to hegemony.
"The principle task now facing the Left...is to change a political culture dominated by "corporate ideology"". Seth Klein paraphrasing Barlow and Campbell

"...there has been a deepening recognition among elites in the West that as you begin to lose the power to control people by force, you have to start to control what they think." -Chomsky, Understanding Power, p. 16.

"...theres no reason why institutions of power and domination should tolerate or encourage people who try to undermine them. That would be completely dysfunctional." p. 261.

I did share some interesting findings with Noam some time ago, stemming from research into the national coverage of the Quebec City FTAA summit, which, for obvious reasons, provided us with a fat 3 month sample of our own 'watered-down' version of the propaganda model. 78% of all [i think it was 175-ish] articles presented a pro-business view, and were soft on the FTAA, or painted protesters as violent anarchists lacking a credible viewpoint, etc. Of the remaining 22% I think 70% of the articles were Klein's, some of Valpy's, maybe a Knox, a Salutin, Maude Barlow once, etc. Noam was not surprised with the findings, though if they were compared to a US sample, say, of the 1999 Seattle WTO festivities, our example would likely seem Liberal in comparison.

"One of the main arguments in this book is that the corporate media, in conjunction with the broader trappings of a modern capitalist society, necessarily generate a depoliticized society..." McChesney, preface to Rich Media...

The question is not WHETHER elites control the agenda, given that the prevailing hegemony is theirs to protect. the question is "how to counter the hegemony of neo-conservatism", or one of "hegemony or survival".


From: Vancouver/Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
globe and mail has lead story on the WSF

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040121.windia0121/BNStory/Internat ional/


i would have to think that you played a big part in this, so congrads man.

but you never addressed this chomsky quote.

quote:
to quote chomsky: "i did find things in the globe and mail which did not appear in the New York Times, or which appeared in only really remote places. And also, i have friends in the canadian media who clip from the canadian press for me, and they often find stuff that doesnt appear anywhere in the United States". (understanding power, page 289)

his point is that the propoganda model does not work in canada like it does in the US. (yes, there is emphasis on official sources, flak operates to a lesser degree, and the papers operate within a market structure) but if you are interested in serious analysis, you must distinguish between the two.

as chomsky states, the propoganda model decreases in applicablity proportional to the importance of the country. he has said this many times, and has also said that canada isnt that important, so the propoganda model doesnt really apply.

if you are talking about the US, than i completely agree that propoganda model, though a rather reductive model, does help in understanding the workings of the media.

i think we have to accept that progressives views are not shared by the mainstream, and so mainstream papers wont give priority to stories that we hold important.

this is what i meant by being media friendly. when the globe asked why they should report it you should have responded:

because joseph stiglitz, and jose bove, and sharin ebadi, peace prize winner, were there. these are names news readers are familiar with. but to tell greenspon, who is just in love with everything neo liberal, (i guess chomsly would argue he got that job precisely cause of his beliefs), you cant just say cause it counter hegemonic gathering it deserves attention.

and for someone who uses the language of gramsci - the war for positions, as he called it - what you call a counter hegemonic movement - must be ideological. this is an ideological battle. its a debating contest. we have a disadvantage of concision, as chomsky discusses, and going against conventional wisdom/embedded assumptions.

either way, the globe is covering the WSF now, and one would have to think that your efforts in large part made it so

[ 21 January 2004: Message edited by: publius politricks valerius ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 21 January 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Biggest anti-globalization meeting winds up in India


Photo: Neelesh Misra/AP
Two Pakistani delegates sit holding anti-U.S. placards at the World Social Forum in Bombay, India, Monday, Jan. 19, 2004. Anti-globalization activists at the World Social Forum called on Monday for an end to discrimination against minority communities such as South American tribes and untouchables in India.


Associated Press

quote:
Mumbai, India — Tens of thousands of activists choked traffic as they marched through the streets of India's financial capital Wednesday, shouting antiwar and anti-capitalist slogans to mark the end of the world's biggest anti-globalization gathering.

The march was led by protesters carrying a large black banner that read, Stop the Killings. Stop the Lying.

Other activists waved red and white flags and showed the thumbs-down sign while shouting, "George Bush, no, no. George Bush, terrorist."

After six days of colourful protests and intense discussions opposing economic liberalization, the Iraq war and racial and caste oppression, the World Social Forum was closing with a massive rally in downtown Mumbai, formerly known as Bombay.

"I think it was a fabulous experience," said Luciano Pitzais, a legal councillor for trade unions from Amsterdam, who was among thousands of marchers.

Troy David, an activist from Strasbourg, France, had a different view. "The big speeches were not so useful," he said. "They just complained and complained about problems but did not suggest solutions."

Some 100,000 people from 132 countries attended the forum, held for the first time outside its home base of Porto Alegre, Brazil. Organizers called it a huge success in mobilizing opinion and widening the global network of civil society groups, especially in Asia and Africa.

The forum was planned as a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum, which was opening Wednesday in Switzerland.

"There was an identification of common economic struggles," said Kent Klandt of Black Rock City, Nev. "It is crucially important for First World activists to be in the Third World."

Two Nobel laureates — peace prize winner Shirin Ebadi and economy prize winner Joseph Stiglitz — and former Irish president Mary Robinson were among the big-name speakers.

Although left-leaning activists formed the overwhelming majority, participants were wide-ranging in their ideas, beliefs and origins: villagers from Kenya, European aid workers, Hiroshima atom-bomb survivors and tribe members from remote corners of South Asia.

"The celebrations and demonstrations are important to show that we are not isolated in our own little regions," said Serg Nuss, 29, from Girona in Spain's Catalonia region.

Discussions of the U.S.-led war on terrorism, its occupation of Iraq and the World Trade Organization dominated much of the forum.

It is expected to shift back to Brazil next year.



[ 21 January 2004: Message edited by: publius politricks valerius ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Foxhammer
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4880

posted 21 January 2004 03:59 PM      Profile for Foxhammer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
a good habit to break them from would be their use of "anti-globalization"
to quote Chomsky:
"No one is opposed to "globalization" in the general sense. For example, participants in the WSF are not opposed to the fact that it exists and that they are attending, a constructive illustration of globalization."
"Consider next "the struggle against globalization." I know of no such struggle.
The participants in the Porto Alegre World Social Forum, for example, are not opposed to the fact that they are able to attend, thanks to international integration, that is, globalization. The First International did not oppose globalization: that was its highest goal, as its name indicates. Globalization in itself is supported or opposed by no one. The question is: what kind of globalization? Like others, the term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful as an ideological weapon. They want it to be used to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, designed in the interests of investors and financial institutions. They can then condemn critics of their projects as "anti-globalization," primitives who want to return to the stone age. No one should tolerate such deceitful practices."

Nothing yet on cbc or canada.com though so I guess this is a breakthrough.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 22 January 2004 03:46 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Article

another globe and mail story on WSF

well, it mentions it at least.

[ 22 January 2004: Message edited by: publius politricks valerius ]

[Edited by Michelle to fix URL and get rid of sidescroll]

[ 24 January 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 22 January 2004 05:13 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
here's one from the toronto star


antonia zerbisias at the toronto star on the WSF


quote:
The World Social Forum 2004 in Bombay (wsfindia.org) has drawn an estimated 100,000 anti-globalization activists from around the world earlier this week — but the daily media acted as if it never happened.

And yet, this meeting dedicated to "people-centred and self-reliant progress" as well as "sustainable development, social and economic justice" is just as worthy of coverage as its antithesis, the World Economic Forum, the elite meet-eat-and-greet taking place in Davos, Switzerland right now.

And "they" say the media are liberal?



From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 24 January 2004 06:02 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
full article on the WSF in the globe by ken wiwa

[Edited by Michelle to fix URL and eliminate side-scroll]

[ 24 January 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 January 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PPV, could you please use the URL function on babble for long internet addresses? The way you've done it has caused sidescroll, making the thread difficult to read.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Meow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1247

posted 26 January 2004 12:23 AM      Profile for Meow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
nubbs galore...

communication studies degree?

the nesbitt larking text suggests this to me....no one else would possibly read that...lol


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
D_man
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4904

posted 26 January 2004 01:55 AM      Profile for D_man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
After reading the lengthy debate between Anthony and nubbs galore it is difficult to determine what the REAL point of all of nubbs "points" were.
"engage the mainstream media" seemed to be the only relevant or salient comment. OK, that was done.
I had difficulty thinking this was energy, time, and words well spent, especially if he apparently purports to agree with anthony.
I think anthony's angle of media bias etc. is not that complicated, regardless of some minr deviations in execution between here and the US.
By the way, subscribers are not meant to generate substantial revenue, they are the product they sell to advertisers, an audience of such and such demographic. No subscribers, no audience to sell to advertisers. Hence anthony's call for a boycott. That seems simple.
It seems to me that these kind of "splitting hairs" debates are entirely counter productive. I really don't appreciate all the if, and, but, or style comments from the tres academic nubbs.
My suggestion would be to stop debating esoteric differences with your comrades and try doing something, like anthony seems to have done judging from the change in media coverage.

From: Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
rubberband man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4765

posted 26 January 2004 09:05 AM      Profile for rubberband man     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think anthony's angle of media bias etc. is not that complicated

yes,and it was his reductive simplicity that i took issue with

quote:
Hence anthony's call for a boycott

read the thread again ... he reads the globe and other mainstream papers.


quote:
I really don't appreciate all the if, and, but, or style comments from the tres academic nubbs.

well antony is doing an MA thesis which is similar to mine, so its supposed to be accademic.

but it was writen in solicitation of your appreciation .. it was to contest the applicability of the propoganda model in canada.

quote:
try doing something, like anthony seems to have done

i have. i have engaged with the paper, writing several letters on the omission. anthony and i both agreed that you need to engage with the paper, not criticize it from the sidelines.

but if you want to make real change, you have to preach to more than the converted


From: morrissette | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gaia_Child
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3015

posted 02 February 2004 05:03 PM      Profile for Gaia_Child     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nubbs, I find it funny that you quote Noam Chomsky's "Understanding Power" in defense of the Canadian media. For there is an entire section in that book in which Chomsky talks about how SIMILAR the Canadian media is to the American.

If I recall correctly, he said he doesn't find anything in the long-term in the Globe and Mail that can't be found in a US paper like the Boston Globe. EXCEPT for coverage of US foreign policy, where Chomsky says the media in Canada is okay with critiquing the US.

But, as Chomsky then points out, the Canadian media elite is NO better than the American at pointing out the war crimes of their own government and country. As an example, Chomsky talks about how balistic Peter Gzowski went when Chomsky started discussing the war crimes of Lester B. Pearson.

And, again, this analysis fits the Corporate-Media-Flak-Machine model.

Canadian journalists can get away with critiquing US power abuses because the US is one step removed. It's relatively easy for bourgeois-asshole Michael Enright and his CBC buds to mock/critique U.S. soldiers and U.S misadventures. U.S power interests don't control this country as completely as they do the U.S.

But when it comes to a Canadian soldier dying, or Caandian weapons shipments to Third World dictators, the "left-wing" CBC and the right-wing CanWest network go absolutely FOX-News warm and fuzzy and brain-dead.


From: Western Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
antiPower
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5108

posted 09 March 2004 09:53 AM      Profile for antiPower     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
gaia child:

Exactly so. The so-called "leftist" CBC is nothing of the sort.

In fact, I'd even go further, and dispute the idea that the CBC really critiques American power in any serious way (it's so called "anti-Americanism" is a hilarious joke).

I can't even guess at how many times I've heard CBC announcers talk about the "war on terror", as if we can all agree on this frame of reference...as if it's indisputably a fight of good (us) against evil (them).

Or how many times they've spoken about the U.S.'s "attempt to build democracy in the Middle East"--again, without any hint that this might be a controversial idea, or even untrue.

The parameters of discussion insist that the U.S. are the good guys--maybe a little too gung-ho for our Canadian tastes, but ultimately noble and trustworthy.

Obviously, this is a debatable idea.


From: NB | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 09 March 2004 04:38 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
secondly, the globe and mail has many quality reporters who will be discussing the WSF in the near future - rick salutin (whose column appears on fridays, and is available on rabble), naomi klein(whose column appears every second week), jim standford (whose column appears on mondays), and paul knox, who reports on latin american politics. All four are among the brightest progressive canadian minds, and all are regular contributing columnist for the globe.

Just nitpicking here...none of these folks are reporters, they are opinion columnists.

The one major difference between Globe reporters and Post reporters is that Globe reporters are unionized...and so therefore have a little bit more freedom to push the envelope.

For example the reporter who broke the story on the Tory scandals at Hydro was from the Globe & Mail.

Sure the mass media is all corporate owned and it sucks most of the time. But unfortunately that's where most folks get their information from and so that means progressives need to develop strategies to get issues noticed.

Sometimes we'll be successful and sometimes we won't.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
anthony
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4873

posted 10 March 2004 02:12 PM      Profile for anthony     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To add further context to the previous post...

Even though the Globe has international correspondents, much of their "news coverage" came from the Associated Press and Reuters. In the case of the Haiti crisis, upwards of 90 per cent of its coverage came from the AP, who [shockingly] boast a daily readership of one billion people.

Notably, when the Globe's Paul Knox went to Haiti, his coverage did not differ greatly from that of the AP, and in fact several of his articles use "AP files" as supporting documentation. As I understand things, most of these reporters huddle around in their hotels [if they aren't embedded with terrorists] conducting interviews by phone.

Fair and balanced reporting in this case would find Haitians being proportionately represented in the news. Bear in mind that the opposition represents a slender 12 per cent of the popular vote, and the armed rebels [aka convicted murderers] even less. If you look at who was interviewed consistently - one could say pathologically - you find opposition leaders, rebel leaders, but few if any of the Haitian majority who voted Aristide in with 92 per cent of the popular vote in 2000.

So on the one hand we have the implicated governments [Canada, US, France] violating international law and on the other corporate news agencies violating ethical covenants [and international law]...Not a pretty picture.

There are of course alternatives to this, though we are a long way from achieving them. Are the odds we're up against [in trying to dismantle corporate hegemony] greater than those the slave abolitionists were up against?


From: Vancouver/Edmonton | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca